Detailed codes of student conduct and consequences for violations of the conduct code are standard in NC schools and local school districts. While these codes were developed in order to make the application of rules less subjective, some researchers have found that these codes have had exactly the opposite influence on disciplinary practices (Fenning & Bohanon, 2006). For instance, minority students tend to receive exclusionary disciplinary action at a disproportionate rate, even with the standardized rules and consequences. Since these policies set the tone for the management of student behavior, handbooks and policies are important structural influences on schools.
One of the most troubling aspects of these documents is their emphasis on reactive and punitive approaches to classroom management. The tendency in discipline handbooks is to list behavioral infractions alongside recommendations for resultant consequences—most commonly, suspensions. Rarely, even with schools that are implementing PBIS, do handbooks include proactive approaches such as strategies for teaching and acknowledging appropriate behaviors. A simple step to improving codes of conduct would be to include proactive strategies in conjunction with the more punitive responses.
Additionally, in codifying the administrative responses to problematic behaviors, often these handbooks fail to remove bias and subjectivity and, in some cases, actually reinforce cultural prejudices. Since this can occur unintentionally, it is important for all discipline handbooks to be reviewed by a diverse group of stakeholders. Parents, students, and community leaders who reflect the diversity of the community should be involved in the review of discipline codes to assist in establishing clear and fair standards.
Detailed codes of student conduct and consequences for violations of the conduct code are standard in NC schools and local school districts. While these codes were developed in order to make the application of rules less subjective, some researchers have found that these codes have had exactly the opposite influence on disciplinary practices (Fenning & Bohanon, 2006). For instance, minority students tend to receive exclusionary disciplinary action at a disproportionate rate, even with the standardized rules and consequences. Since these policies set the tone for the management of student behavior, handbooks and policies are important structural influences on schools.
One of the most troubling aspects of these documents is their emphasis on reactive and punitive approaches to classroom management. The tendency in discipline handbooks is to list behavioral infractions alongside recommendations for resultant consequences—most commonly, suspensions. Rarely, even with schools that are implementing PBIS, do handbooks include proactive approaches such as strategies for teaching and acknowledging appropriate behaviors. A simple step to improving codes of conduct would be to include proactive strategies in conjunction with the more punitive responses.
Additionally, in codifying the administrative responses to problematic behaviors, often these handbooks fail to remove bias and subjectivity and, in some cases, actually reinforce cultural prejudices. Since this can occur unintentionally, it is important for all discipline handbooks to be reviewed by a diverse group of stakeholders. Parents, students, and community leaders who reflect the diversity of the community should be involved in the review of discipline codes to assist in establishing clear and fair standards.